Author: Andrew StaceyFormat: MarkdownEvery now and then some spam gets through the filters on the forum. Toby and I can remove it from public view (it stays in the database so if it turns out that it wasn't spam it can easily be deleted). Also, I can set the user account which was used to "banned" to prevent it being used again. Other useful information, such as IPs and email addresses, is also logged. But to keep the place clean, we need to be aware of the spam occurring. I, in particular, don't read every post made here on the forum. So if you spot some spam, please alert someone. Use this discussion if you like.

Every now and then some spam gets through the filters on the forum. Toby and I can remove it from public view (it stays in the database so if it turns out that it wasn't spam it can easily be deleted). Also, I can set the user account which was used to "banned" to prevent it being used again. Other useful information, such as IPs and email addresses, is also logged. But to keep the place clean, we need to be aware of the spam occurring. I, in particular, don't read every post made here on the forum. So if you spot some spam, please alert someone. Use this discussion if you like.

Author: TobyBartelsFormat: MarkdownAndrew wrote in part:
>it stays in the database so if it turns out that it wasn't spam it can easily be deleted
I suppose that the last word should be ‘undeleted’. So far, I've only deleted/hidden something while also explaining what it was, to prevent any nasty surprises.

Andrew wrote in part:

it stays in the database so if it turns out that it wasn't spam it can easily be deleted

I suppose that the last word should be ‘undeleted’. So far, I've only deleted/hidden something while also explaining what it was, to prevent any nasty surprises.

Author: Andrew StaceyFormat: MarkdownItexDeleted. (And I deleted your comment as well since it was no longer relevant and potentially confusing.)
I'm starting to wonder if allowing anonymous comments is worth it. We haven't had any genuine anonymous comments for some time, and since the reCaptcha broke there's no obvious barrier to spammers. It doesn't do them any good, though, since guest comments are fully escaped so there are no backlinks created (which is what they want, I believe).

Deleted. (And I deleted your comment as well since it was no longer relevant and potentially confusing.)

I’m starting to wonder if allowing anonymous comments is worth it. We haven’t had any genuine anonymous comments for some time, and since the reCaptcha broke there’s no obvious barrier to spammers. It doesn’t do them any good, though, since guest comments are fully escaped so there are no backlinks created (which is what they want, I believe).

Author: DavidRobertsFormat: MarkdownItexAnd more at <http://nforum.mathforge.org/discussion/3024/global-analytic-geometry-and-analytic-langlands-program/#Item_51> and <http://nforum.mathforge.org/discussion/4643/prequantum-field-theory/#Item_11>

Author: Andrew StaceyFormat: MarkdownItexI've deleted those (and the posts saying "Please delete the above spam"). I've also turned off the anonymous commenting stuff for the time being. I'll turn it back on if I can think of an unobtrusive spam splatter.

I’ve deleted those (and the posts saying “Please delete the above spam”). I’ve also turned off the anonymous commenting stuff for the time being. I’ll turn it back on if I can think of an unobtrusive spam splatter.

Author: Tim_PorterFormat: MarkdownItexForum Spam ahoy! Look at Schur functors and also Goodwillie calculusThe first has clear spam from obd2work and that same source has made a strange comment in the second of those.
... and Happy New Year everyone.

Forum Spam ahoy! Look at Schur functors and also Goodwillie calculusThe first has clear spam from obd2work and that same source has made a strange comment in the second of those.

Author: Andrew StaceyFormat: MarkdownItexDeleted and banned.
(I also deleted a comment by Zoran that was pointing out the spam on the Schur functors discussion. I do this when the following comment refers back to the spam comment since when I delete the spam comment then it appears to refer to a different comment, so long as the following comment contains nothing of significance. Zoran did ask a question there: in answer, all that's needed to get an account here is to have an active email address. Thus far, we haven't needed anything more stringent than that.)

Deleted and banned.

(I also deleted a comment by Zoran that was pointing out the spam on the Schur functors discussion. I do this when the following comment refers back to the spam comment since when I delete the spam comment then it appears to refer to a different comment, so long as the following comment contains nothing of significance. Zoran did ask a question there: in answer, all that’s needed to get an account here is to have an active email address. Thus far, we haven’t needed anything more stringent than that.)

Author: Tim_PorterFormat: MarkdownItexAt torsion theory, quotient category. Is there any other place with similar Spam?
(Later: Yes: at Wirthmüller context, Grothendieck context and at Homotopy Type Theory -- Univalent Foundations of Mathematics
.)

At torsion theory, quotient category. Is there any other place with similar Spam?

Author: Mathforge AdminFormat: TextWhat was the "torsion theory, quotient theory" spam? Can you link to it?
I removed the spam at the other three discussions (and the pointless "Oh look, some spam" posts that inevitably follow.).

What was the "torsion theory, quotient theory" spam? Can you link to it?

I removed the spam at the other three discussions (and the pointless "Oh look, some spam" posts that inevitably follow.).

Author: Richard WilliamsonFormat: MarkdownItexI have deleted the spam now, from the database as well (I kept the recent discussions on this in mind, but here it is clearly uncontroversial). Have also deleted the user (blocking would be trivial to circumvent). I could block the IP address, but this is easy to circumnavigate as well, so I think we can just see how it goes, it might just have been a one off.
For future record, the UserID was 1756.

I have deleted the spam now, from the database as well (I kept the recent discussions on this in mind, but here it is clearly uncontroversial). Have also deleted the user (blocking would be trivial to circumvent). I could block the IP address, but this is easy to circumnavigate as well, so I think we can just see how it goes, it might just have been a one off.

For future record, the UserID was 1756.

1 to 35 of 35

Add your comments

Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.UsernamePassword

To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.